AMD Details Bulldozer at ISSCC

Status
Not open for further replies.

burnley14

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2009
682
0
18,990
3
So AMD is really hitting it hard with core expansion. I thought the "core race" was supposed to be dead? Personally it sounds to me like the way things will end up, so maybe AMD is taking a step in the right direction?
 

alphadark

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2010
49
0
18,530
0
ARGH!!!!!! Give a release date and some benchmarks AMD!!! If you don't release info soon I am upgrading to the sandy bridge platform.
 

jfby

Distinguished
Jun 4, 2010
418
0
18,810
10
[citation][nom]burnley14[/nom]So AMD is really hitting it hard with core expansion. I thought the "core race" was supposed to be dead? Personally it sounds to me like the way things will end up, so maybe AMD is taking a step in the right direction?[/citation]

I think the limit to core expansion will be when the manufacturers can't deliver a reliable core count at a given manufacturing size (nm). Even then it will only be temporary.

The real limit will be when/if we actually need 12 or 16 or more cores for everyday use.
 

dgingeri

Distinguished
Dec 4, 2009
2,123
1
20,460
212
16 cores with 2 near separate cores, but only one fp unit between them. I'd say these likely won't be good for gaming but will be very good for server work. We'll have to wait and see...
 
G

Guest

Guest
As much as I want to back the underdog here, it is hard to do it if they don't even bring a horse to the race. Even if this thing has 50 cores and 90billion transistors on a 2nm die on paper, it means nothing when there isn't a product.

AMD might as well start research on Star Trek transporter technology.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"This wait is getting tiresome. Maybe I'll do Intel for my next build"
"ARGH!!!!!! Give a release date and some benchmarks AMD!!! If you don't release info soon I am upgrading to the sandy bridge platform."

Um do you guys realise Intel was a little quick to release Sandy Bridge and all you have is a Billion dollars worth of paper weights. There is absolutley nothing that requires home users to have thses AMD chips at the moment. AMD take your time and get it right ...
..
 

nebun

Distinguished
Oct 20, 2008
2,841
0
20,810
19
[citation][nom]alphadark[/nom]ARGH!!!!!! Give a release date and some benchmarks AMD!!! If you don't release info soon I am upgrading to the sandy bridge platform.[/citation]
be patient...i am sure that you can wait a little longer...intel is and will allways be better than AMD
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,534
0
22,790
2
When When When When When When When When When When When When When When When When When When When When When When When When?

Is it coming soon? 2012...? The world ends, it'll be to late by then.

My 2+ year old core2 Quad is looking for an AMD replacement.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Eliminate AMD and Intel will cease to innovate at more than a snales pace. Who cares about buying Intels latest and greatest when both AMD and Intel will pass your benchmark in the near future anyway. Be smart support what's important as the ignorant masses continue to Mcdonaldize everything.
 

jmm5351

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2010
31
0
18,530
0
killerclick you obviously have no common sense to say what you said. How the hell do you know that bulldozer 8 cores are going to be crap. I suppose you can foresee the future. AND using just logic and common sense it is pretty obvious they are not going to be crap because why would AMD spend years developing "crap". That would be stupid for a company to develop "crap" because they would waste all that money. Use some common sense Killerclick, stop being dumb.

I agree though AMD needs to tell the public an actual target date when these will be available to purchase. I want to buy one but I may end up getting a sandybridge even though the southbridge chipset is having some problems. The 2600K is pretty solid. And Killerclick AMD has stated estimated performance figures before if you just do some simple searching you can find the figures. And coming from a company standpoint, the performance figures AMD stated for their 8 core bulldozer CPUS are probably a little bit lower than they actually will be. AMD is not a favorite among the majority of pc users, so I doubt AMD would overstate the performance of their CPU's because that would piss a lot of people off if the CPU's fell short of AMD's performance figures. I would think that when the 8 core Zambezi is released that it will be faster than what AMD has said in the past. For anyone wondering, AMD said that the 8 core Zambezi is supposed to be 50% faster than a core i7-950 in gaming to give you an idea of performance. I expect that it will even be a little faster.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Moderator
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
3
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]You know it's going to be crap because they're talking about architecture instead of performance.[/citation]

When they mentioned benchmarks for Barcelona, everyone said "it's only 30% not 40% faster." Just be careful cause I still don't know how to judge i3,i5,i7 with the 3xx, 4xx, 5xx, 7xx, 8xx, 9xx. At least AMD doesn't castrate chips to charge less.
 

BaronMatrix

Splendid
Moderator
Dec 14, 2005
6,655
0
25,790
3
[citation][nom]Bigmac80[/nom]Yeah AMD is M.I.A! Atleast we know how fast sandy bridge is already. The i5 2500k is more then i need and for a decent price.[/citation]


So you mean people who bought i7 got ripped off?
 

belardo

Splendid
Nov 23, 2008
3,534
0
22,790
2
Yeah... people who stupidly want/wish for AMD's death are... stupid.

It was AMD that brought CPU prices down. It was AMD that had the fastest CPUs against the P4 and Xeons with Netburst. Then Intel got smart and shocked us when they made Core2 much much better and even cheaper than AMD. Even a bottom end core2 type "Pentium 2150" that went for $50 was faster than the $1000 Pentium Extreme Netburst.

Back in the PentiumII and Pentium III era in which AMD couldn't compete Intel in performance or reliability (chipsets & low cost mobos caused most stability problems) - *WE* paid $1000 for top in CPUs. Just the CPU! Like the PII-400Mhz or the PIII-866.

With AMD Selling 1.2Ghz TBirds for $300 or so... why pay $1000 for a P3 or P4? Of course the earliest P4s were pure crap (slower than P3) and super expensive with $250+ motherboards and crappy EXPENSIVE RD-RAM which was about 3-4x the price of SDR!
So in 2001, a typical P4 1.4 bare bones with mobo and 512MB of RAM (only) was about $1500 and it was SLOWER than $600 AMD setup.

I use both AMD and INTEL for my computers. The ones I've bought; I have been happy (or mostly happy) with their performance and stability.

My "DREAM" system in the next 3-4 months:
- AMD Bulldozer X4 under $200.
AMD Chipset motherboard with these features (Skipping the basics)
- USB 3.0 (native chipset controlled)
- SATA 3.0 (native, perhaps ALL ports)
- Thunderbolt (Yeah, want that)
- PCIe 3.0 (okay, that's wishful thinking)

I'll get a 100~120GB SSD unit that is the OCZ Vertrx 3 or better (we have all kinds of drives coming out) for OS and primary applications. Then throw in a 2GB 7200RPM drive for data. Use a thunderbolt external drive unit for mass storage. I may wait until the AMD 7000 series GPUs hit the market.
 

jmm5351

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2010
31
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]svan[/nom]"This wait is getting tiresome. Maybe I'll do Intel for my next build""ARGH!!!!!! Give a release date and some benchmarks AMD!!! If you don't release info soon I am upgrading to the sandy bridge platform."Um do you guys realise Intel was a little quick to release Sandy Bridge and all you have is a Billion dollars worth of paper weights. There is absolutley nothing that requires home users to have thses AMD chips at the moment. AMD take your time and get it right .....[/citation]

If the 2500K is suits your needs then why are you even complaining about AMD in the first place. Intel fans are always funny. You guys complain about AMD is not fast enough just because it isn't as fast as Intel. That is irrelevant. What matters is that you can use your computer and enjoy it. Second you should be grateful for AMD because they keep pushing Intel's innovation for you Intel fans. If Intel had no direct competitor, they would not be flying out with new CPU's at the rate they are more likely. If Intel did continue spitting out CPU's like they are, then they would be very very very costly. AMD helps keep Intel honest for you Intel fanboys. You really need to appreciate AMD more. They are actually helping you people out. Even if AMD does make a faster processor then Intel fanboys will still find something to complain about AMD like price or something stupid. WE GET IT, you don't like AMD. If AMD wanted they could make 1,000 dollar plus cpus for desktops to, but AMD is about making fast efficient processors for a good cost to consumers. Not making a 990X CPU that has no purpose at all. If I was rich I would buy that CPU but I am not and a majority of people are not rich and do not buy that CPU. It is a pointless move by Intel but Intel has plenty of money to spend on something stupid that says "I have the fastest CPU". AMD doesn't have the money to waste resources on a CPU that only 1000 people are going to buy. Intel probably loses money making that CPU.
 

silky salamandr

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2009
277
0
18,810
9
AMD is and always will be the dollar store of cpus. Just look at their business strategy. They dont care and dont mind at all that they play second fiddle to intel in ALL their products. Whats really funny is that people support this stagnant business model that sits under Intels table and picks up the scraps. I want to like them but they have NEVER given me a reason to stop using Intel procs.

When I look at my rig, I want to feel like I got the best for what Im willing to spend. With AMD you will never have the best.

And like I said before. There is no benchmarks. There is no leaked engineering samples. Hell, there aint even a picture of the silicon.

No pics means it didnt happen. Stop talking about this "bulldozer" cause it doesnt exist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY